DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court for the District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., 20001 Room 2002, phone (202) 354–3320, fax 354–3412 BERYL A. HOWELL, chief judge; born in Fort Benning, GA; daughter of Col. (Ret.) Leamon and Ruth Howell; Killeen High School, Killeen, TX, 1974; B.A. with honors in philosophy, Bryn Mawr College (President and Member, Honor Board, 1976–78); J.D., Colum- bia University School of Law, 1983 (Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1981–82; International Fellows Program, 1982–83, Transnational Law Journal, Notes Editor); law clerk to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, District of New Jersey, 1983–84; litigation associate, Schulte, Roth and Zabel, 1985–87; Assistant United States Attorney, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1987–93; Deputy Chief, Narcotics Section, 1990–93; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, 1993–94; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, 1995–96; General Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1997–2003; Executive Managing Director and General Counsel, Stroz Friedberg, 2003–09; Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission, 2004–11; Member, Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency, 2008; Adjunct Professor of Law, American University’s Washington College of Law, 2010; appointed judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama on December 27, 2010, took oath of office on January 21, 2011; appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Information Technology, 2013–16, and to the Judicial Conference, 2016–present. Awards include U.S. Attorney’s Special Achievement Award for Sustained Superior Performance, 1990, 1991; Drug Enforcement Administration Commenda- tions, 1990, 1992, 1993; Attorney General’s Director’s Award for Superior Performance, 1991; Federal Bureau of Investigation Award and New York City Department of Investigation Award for public corruption investigation and prosecution, 1992; Freedom of Information Hall of Fame, 2001; First Amendment Award, Society of Professional Journalists, 2004; Federal Bureau of Investigation Director’s Award, 2006; Book chapters and law review article publications include Seven Weeks: The Making of the USA PATRIOT Act, The George Washington Law Review, 2004; FISA’s Fruits in Criminal Cases: An Opportunity for Improved Accountability, UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 2007; Book Chapters include: Real World Problems of Virtual Crime, in Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment, 2007; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Has the Solution Become the Prob- lem, in Protecting What Matters: Technology, Security, and Liberty Since 9/11, 2006; and articles in the New York Law Journal, Journal of Internet Law, Vermont Bar Journal, and Yale Journal of Law and Technology. EMMET G. SULLIVAN, judge; son of Emmet A. Sullivan and Eileen G. Sullivan; born in Washington, DC; graduated McKinley High School, 1964; B.A., Howard University, 1968; J.D., Howard University Law School, 1971; recipient of Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship, assigned to the Neighborhood Legal Services Program in Washington, DC, 1971–72; law clerk to Judge James A. Washington, Jr., 1972–73; joined the law firm of Houston and Gardner, 1973–80, became a partner; thereafter, was a partner with Houston, Sullivan and Gardner; board of directors of the DC Law Students in Court Program; DC Judicial Conference Voluntary Arbitration Committee; Nominating Committee of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia; U.S. District Court Committee on Grievances; adjunct professor at Howard University School of Law; adjunct professor at American University, Washington College of Law; member: National Bar Association, Washington Bar Association, Bar Association of the District of Columbia; appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as an associate judge, 1984; deputy presiding judge and presiding judge of the probate and tax division; chairperson of the rules committees for the probate and tax divisions; member: Court Rules Committee and the Jury Plan Committee; appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve as an associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1991; chairperson for the nineteenth annual judicial conference of the 871 872 Congressional Directory District of Columbia, 1994 (the Conference theme was ‘‘Rejuvenating Juvenile Justice— Responses to the Problems of Juvenile Violence in the District of Columbia’’); appointed by chief judge Wagner to chair the ‘‘Task Force on Families and Violence for the District of Columbia Courts’’; nominated to the U.S. District Court by President Clinton on March 22, 1994; and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 15, 1994; appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Criminal Law 1998–2005; District of Columbia Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission, 1996–2001; chair of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission since 2005; appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Space and Facilities, 2012, re-appointed by the Chief Justice in 2015; only person in the District of Columbia to have been appointed to three judicial positions by three different U.S. Presidents; recipient of the Ollie May Cooper Award, awarded by the Washington Bar Association; the Thurgood Marshall Award of Excellence, awarded by the Howard Univer- sity Alumni Association; the Howard University Distinguished Alumni Award, awarded by the President and Board of Trustees of Howard University; American Inns of Court Profes- sionalism Award for the District of Columbia Circuit for 2015; the National Bar Association’s Gertrude E. Rush Award; the Charles Hamilton Houston Medallion of Merit, awarded by the Washington Bar Association; named Judge of the Year for 2017 by the Bar Association of the District of Columbia; founder and current director of the Frederick B. Abramson Scholarship Foundation. COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, judge; born in New York, NY; daughter of Konstantine and Irene Kollar; attended bilingual schools in Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela and George- town Visitation Preparatory School in Washington, DC; received B.A. degree in English at Catholic University (Delta Epsilon Honor Society); received J.D. at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law (Moot Court Board of Governors); law clerk to Hon. Catherine B. Kelly, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1968–69; attorney, United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, 1969–72; chief legal counsel, Saint Elizabeths Hospital, Department of Health and Human Services, 1972–84; received Saint Elizabeths Hospital Certificate of Appreciation, 1981; Meritorious Achievement Award from Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), Department of Health and Human Services, 1981; appointed judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia by President Reagan, October 3, 1984, took oath of office October 21, 1984; served as Deputy Presiding Judge, Criminal Division, January 1996–April 1997; received Achievement Recognition Award, Hispanic Heritage CORO Awards Celebration, 1996; appointed judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Clinton on March 26, 1997, took oath of office May 12, 1997; appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the Financial Disclosure Committee, 2000–02; presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, 2002–09; appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to the Judicial Resources Committee of the Judicial Conference, 2009–16; appointed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell to the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, 2017. JAMES E. BOASBERG, judge; born in San Francisco, CA, 1963; son of Emanuel Boasberg III and Sarah Szold Boasberg; graduated St. Albans School, Washington, DC, 1981; B.A., magna cum laude, in history from Yale College, 1985; M.St. in modern European history from Oxford University, 1986; J.D. from Yale Law School, 1990; law clerk to Judge Dorothy W. Nelson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1990–91; associate, Keker and Van Nest in San Francisco, CA, 1991–94; associate, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and Evans in Washington, DC, 1995–96; Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 1996–2002; visiting lecturer, George Washington Law School, 2003; Associate Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court, 2002–11; United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, 2011–present; appointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, May 2014. AMY BERMAN JACKSON, judge; appointed March of 2011; prior to joining the Court, engaged in private practice in Washington, DC, as a member of Trout Cacheris, specializing in complex criminal and civil trials and appeals; earlier, partner at Venable, Baetjer, Howard, and Civiletti; Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 1980–86; received Department of Justice Special Achievement Awards for work on murder and sexual assault cases; J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1979; A.B. cum laude, Harvard College, 1976; law clerk to the Honorable Harrison L. Winter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; lectured on corporate criminal investigations and has been a regular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MDL's Roots As a Class Action Alternative
    ARTICLE SOMETHING LESS AND SOMETHING MORE: MDL’S ROOTS AS A CLASS ACTION ALTERNATIVE ANDREW D. BRADT† INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1711 I. CLASS ACTIONS AND MDLS IN MASS TORTS ........................... 1714 II. THE PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT OF MDL AND NEW RULE 23 .. 1720 A. Two Committees on Two Tracks: Events Leading up to November 1963 ........................................................................................ 1720 B. The Civil Rules Advisory Committee Meets, October 31–November 2, 1963 .................................................................................... 1725 C. The Reporters Meet With the CCML, November 17–18, 1963 .......... 1727 III. THE CCML’S REJECTION OF A PREDOMINANCE REQUIREMENT ........................................................................ 1731 IV. OBSERVATIONS WITH THE BENEFIT OF FIFTY YEARS’ HINDSIGHT ............................................................................. 1737 CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 1742 INTRODUCTION Rule 23(b)(3) has always had a bit of a self-confidence problem, at least when it comes to mass torts. Although it offers what its drafters called an † Assistant Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). Many thanks to my friends and colleagues for their very helpful comments and suggestions, particularly Bob Berring, Stephen Burbank, Zachary Clopton, Edward Cooper, William Fletcher, Troy McKenzie, Teddy Rave, Judith
    [Show full text]
  • Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
    CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenovo Adware Litigation / Mdl Docket No.______
    Case MDL No. 2624 Document 1-1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 18 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION / MDL DOCKET NO.____________ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1407 FOR CONSOLIDATED OR COORDINATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff Lukas Pick (“Plaintiff”), as putative class representative in the action styled Pick v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00068-D (E.D.N.C.) (“the Pick action”), pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against defendants Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) and Superfish Inc. (“Superfish”) (collectively, “Defendants”), respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of his request that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) enter an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 (“§1407”) transferring and consolidating the related actions listed in the Schedule of Actions (hereinafter the “Actions”). I. INTRODUCTION The Pick action and all of the other Actions detailed below bring claims against Lenovo and Superfish arising from the intentional and covert installation of adware on Lenovo’s Case MDL No. 2624 Document 1-1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 18 consumer computers. These Actions include the following, which were filed in various federal jurisdictions: (a) Bennett v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al., No. 3:15-CV-00368-CAB- RBB (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 19, 2015); (b) Hunter v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al., No.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Means of Compulsion Are Essential To
    ªSome Means of Compulsion are Essential to Obtain What is Neededº: Reviving Congress's Oversight Authority of the Executive Branch by Imposing Fines for Non-Compliance with Congressional Subpoenas MAX G. LESSER* INTRODUCTION Congressional oversight has played a critical role in uncovering wrongdoing in the executive branch, from the historic corruption of the Teapot Dome Scandal to the presidential abuses of power in Watergate. Underpinning these investigations has been the Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the broad oversight authority possessed by Congress, which empowers the body to compel testimony and documentation.1 Possessing investigative power allows Congress to ful®ll several critical responsibilities. First, Congress can oversee whether the laws it passes are being faithfully executed, in terms of how ªeffectively, ef®ciently, and frugally the executive branch is carrying out congressional mandates.º2 Second, Congress can identify any executive misconduct, such as ªpoor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud.º3 Third, Congress can utilize the information gained from investigative oversight to address issues through appropriate legislation, the body's core constitutional function. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has described congressional over- sight as ªessentialº4 for the Article I branch of our government. When congressional oversight faces resistance, the contempt power provides Congress a tool for coercing compliance and punishing those who obstruct its investigations.5 The power has generally been utilized to address non-compliance with a congressionally issued subpoena, and has historically been enforced by the * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2022); M.S.Ed., Hunter College of The City University of New York - Graduate School of Education (2016); B.A., The George Washington University (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the MDL As De Facto Opt-In Class Action Jay Tidmarsh Notre Dame Law School the Original Concept Underpinning the MDL Statute W
    The MDL as De Facto Opt-In Class Action Jay Tidmarsh Notre Dame Law School The original concept underpinning the MDL statute was to provide a mechanism to coordinate discovery—through such means as common discovery orders, national depositions conducted for use in individual cases on remand, and centralized document depositories.1 Over the past fifty years, the MDL process has morphed into something quite different. During its first thirty years the MDL process moved from a discovery-coordination technique to a mechanism by which a single transferee judge resolved the entire dispute without remand to the transferor forums. Often the transferee judge accomplished this task by means of self-transfer, a practice that Lexecon2 abolished in 1998. By then, however, the die had been cast. Long before 1998, case management had evolved from its original principal purpose of narrowing issues in advance of trial to its present principal goal of achieving settlement without trial.3 Post–Lexecon, MDL transferee judges have applied their considerable case- management powers to resolve on pretrial motion—or to induce the parties to settle— most transferred MDL cases. Although remand of cases to their transferor fora is theoretically possible, the final disposition of transferred cases in the MDL forum is the norm. At the same time, the importance of the MDL process has increased dramatically. In recent years, MDL litigation has constituted thirty-five to nearly forty percent of the federal civil docket, and requests for MDL treatment have risen substantially in the past twenty years.4 An overwhelming number of the present MDL cases are products-liability claims.
    [Show full text]
  • July 13, 2020 the Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S
    July 13, 2020 The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Barr: President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s prison sentence for obstructing a bipartisan congressional investigation raises serious questions about whether this extraordinary intervention was provided in exchange for Mr. Stone’s silence about incriminating acts by the President. During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019, I asked whether you “believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise not to incriminate him.”1 Without hesitation or caveat – and under oath – you responded: “No, that would be a crime.”2 Given recently surfaced information indicating that President Trump may have commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence in exchange for his refusal to incriminate the President, pursuant to your own standard, an inquiry by the Justice Department into Mr. Stone’s commutation is clearly warranted. Thanks to recent Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, newly unredacted portions of Special Counsel Mueller’s report reveal that multiple witnesses confirmed then-candidate Trump’s direct knowledge and encouragement of Roger Stone’s efforts to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton stolen by Russian hackers.3 These witnesses’ observations flatly contradict President Trump’s repeated denials of having such knowledge of Mr. Stone’s activities in his written responses to Special Counsel Mueller’s questions.4 After submitting these suspect answers to the Special Counsel, President Trump took to twitter and praised Mr. Stone for being “brave” and having “guts” for refusing to cooperate with investigators and provide incriminating testimony against him.5 Special Counsel Mueller observed that the President’s tweets about 1 Meg Wagner, Veronica Rocha, & Amanda Wills, Trump’s Attorney General Pick Faces Senate Hearing, CNN (last updated Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Amy Berman Jackson
    MUELLER'S WENCH AMY BERMAN JACKSON Amy Berman Jackson is a judge you need to know about. She is a deep state swamp bottomfeeder who does the bidding of her master Robert Mueller. Get the word out to your social media. This is the judge that keeps Paul Manafort a political prisoner and is now ruling on Roger Stone. They need our help. Feb. 04, 2019? Judge Amy Berman Jackson has been assigned to most, if not all, of the Mueller prosecutions. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to recuse if their involvement raises even the appearance of impropriety. Jackson has layers of conflicts of interest in violation of multiple Canons in matters related to Robert Mueller and Hillary Clinton: 1. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has permitted her long-time former law partners from Trout Cacheris LLP, Robert Trout and Gloria B. Solomon, to represent parties in the Mueller matters. The appearance of impropriety and conspiracy with Mueller?s political agenda is evident. 2. Judge Amy Berman Jackson holds direct financial interests in at least two institutions who are notoriously-known donors to The Clinton Foundation (four Fidelity funds and two Capital one funds). This is actual impropriety requiring recusal. 3. Judge Amy Berman Jackson concealed about 85 holdings in corporate stocks in 2009 by shifting them into 44 mutual funds that hold those (and more Clintonistas) stocks in 2012. While she may have relied upon the highly dubious ?safe harbor? ?concept? (it is not a rule, policy or procedure, and certainly is not law since Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Arm of Multidistrict Litigation
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 59 (2017-2018) Issue 4 Article 2 3-15-2018 The Long Arm of Multidistrict Litigation Andrew D. Bradt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Jurisdiction Commons Repository Citation Andrew D. Bradt, The Long Arm of Multidistrict Litigation, 59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1165 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol59/iss4/2 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr William & Mary Law Review VOLUME 59 NO. 4, 2018 THE LONG ARM OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ANDREW D. BRADT* ABSTRACT Nearly 40 percent of the civil cases currently pending in federal court—now over 130,000—are part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. In MDL, all cases pending in federal district courts around the country sharing a common question of fact, such as the defectiveness of a product or drug, are transferred to a single district judge for consolidated pretrial proceedings, after which they are supposed to be remanded for trial. But the reality is that less than 3 percent are ever sent back because the cases are resolved in the MDL court, either through dispositive motion or mass settlement. Surprisingly, despite the fact that the MDL court is where all of the action in these cases * Assistant Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). Many thanks to friends and colleagues who have provided invaluable feedback, including Bob Berring, Stephen Bundy, Stephen Burbank, Zachary Clopton, William Dodge, Robin Effron, Daniel Farber, William Fletcher, Richard Freer, Maggie Gardner, Richard Marcus, David Noll, David Oppenheimer, Teddy Rave, Richard Re, Judith Resnik, Joanna Schwartz, Susannah Tobin, Jan Vetter, Stephen Yeazell, John Yoo, Diego Zambrano, and Adam Zimmerman.
    [Show full text]
  • GRAY, GORDON: Papers, 1946-76
    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS GRAY, GORDON: Papers, 1946-76 Accessions 75-24, 76-5, 76-5/1, and 77-1 Processed by: KN Date Completed: June 1979 The papers of Gordon Gray, publishing and broadcasting executive and government official, arrived at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library in four shipments. Accession 75-24 was received in March 1975, A76-5 in August 1975, A76-5/1 in January 1976, and A77-1 in September 1976. An instrument of a gift for these papers was executed in January 1975. Linear feet of shelf space occupied: 4 Approximate number of pages: 7,800 Approximate number of items: 3,900 Literary property rights in the writings of Gordon Gray in these papers and in other collections of papers in the Eisenhower Library are reserved to Mr. Gray during his lifetime and thereafter to the United States of America. By agreement with the donor the following classes of documents will be withheld from research use: 1. Papers relating to the family and private business affairs of Gordon Gray. 2. Papers relating to the family and private business affairs of other persons who had correspondence with him. 3. Papers relating to investigations of individuals or to appointments and personnel matters. 4. Papers containing statements by or to Gordon Gray in confidence unless in the judgment of the Director of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library the reason for confidentiality no longer exists. 5. All other papers which contain information or statements that might be used to injure, harass, or damage any living person. SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE The papers of Gordon Gray span the years 1946 to 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal of D.C. Federal Judge's ERA-Expired Ruling Likely to Extend
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, May 3, 2021, 4:30 PM EDT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Laura Echevarria, (202) 626-8825, [email protected] Appeal of D.C. Federal Judge’s ERA-Expired Ruling Likely to Extend an Unbroken 40-Year Losing Streak For ERA-Resuscitation Legal Claims WASHINGTON – Three Democratic attorneys general today appealed a landmark March 5 ruling by federal Judge Rudolph Contreras, who held that the Equal Rights Amendment expired decades ago, and that the ERA in reality has not been “ratified” by 38 states as has been widely reported (Virginia v. Ferriero). Attorneys general Mark Herring (Virginia), Aaron Ford (Nevada), and Kwame Raoul (Illinois) filed notice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that they appeal Judge Contreras’ ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. “The March 5 ruling by Judge Rudolph Contreras, a widely respected judge appointed by President Obama, holding the 1972 ERA expired decades ago, was only the latest in an unbroken, 40-year chain of rejections of ERA-is-alive legal claims by federal judges of all stripes,” said NRLC Senior Policy Advisor Douglas Johnson, director of NRLC’s ERA Project. “Today, three Democratic attorneys general set the stage for the hammering of yet more judicial nails into the ERA’s coffin lid.” Judge Contreras ruled that the deadline included by Congress in the Proposing Clause of the 1972 ERA Resolution was constitutional, and the ERA therefore expired more than three decades ago. The legislative actions by Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and Virginia (January 2020) were not real ratifications because they “came too late to count,” Contreras ruled.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B—Nominations Submitted to the Senate
    Appendix B—Nominations Submitted to the Senate The following list does not include promotions Peter Arno Krauthamer, of members of the Uniformed Services, nomi- of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate nations to the Service Academies, or nomina- Judge of the Superior Court of the District of tions of Foreign Service officers. Columbia for the term of 15 years, vice John Henry Bayly, Jr., retired. Submitted July 5 John Francis McCabe, Thomas J. Curry, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate of Massachusetts, to be Comptroller of the Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Currency for a term of 5 years, vice John C. Columbia for the term of 15 years, vice James Dugan, resigned. E. Boasberg, resigned. Mary John Miller, Charles DeWitt McConnell, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Treasury, vice Jeffrey Alan Goldstein. (Fossil Energy), vice James J. Markowsky, resigned. Matthew G. Olsen, Submitted July 12 of Maryland, to be Director of the National Matan Aryeh Koch, Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Direc- tor of National Intelligence, vice Michael E. of New York, to be a member of the National Leiter, resigned. Council on Disability for a term expiring Sep- tember 17, 2013, vice Carol Jean Reynolds, term expired. Wendy Ruth Sherman, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of State Stephanie Orlando, (Political Affairs), vice William J. Burns, resigned. of New York, to be a member of the National Council on Disability for the remainder of the Submitted July 11 term expiring September 17, 2011, vice Heath- er McCallum, resigned.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Judicial Ethics: the Exception to the Rule of Keeping Judicial Conduct Judicial and the Politicization of the Judiciary
    KASTENBERGRTP.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/10/20 8:28 AM NATIONAL SECURITY AND JUDICIAL ETHICS: THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF KEEPING JUDICIAL CONDUCT JUDICIAL AND THE POLITICIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY JOSHUA KASTENBERG I. DISQUALIFICATION AND THE MISTRETTA RULE ....................................................... 288 A. JUDICIAL RECUSAL RULES IN THE MODERN ERA ....................................................................... 291 B. JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 293 II. JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES, ADVICE, AND ENCOURAGEMENT: TAFT, STONE, AND BURGER ..................................................................................................................................................... 298 A. TAFT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY EXCEPTION .................................................................... 302 B. STONE: OPPOSITION TO EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONDUCT BUT RESISTANCE TO HIS EXAMPLE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 305 C. WARREN BURGER AND THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF NIXON .............................................. 309 D. THE CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE AND ANSWER ................................... 312 III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]